Opinion
2013-06-26
Morgan DELIJANI, respondent, v. Parham DELIJANI, defendant; Sean Sabeti, nonparty-appellant.
Sean Sabeti, Great Neck, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se. Anthony A. Capetola, Williston Park, N.Y. (Michele R. Olsen and Robert P. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
Sean Sabeti, Great Neck, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se. Anthony A. Capetola, Williston Park, N.Y. (Michele R. Olsen and Robert P. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered December 4, 2003, the nonparty Sean Sabeti, the defendant's former attorney, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Maron, J.), dated May 13, 2011, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to hold him in criminal contempt for violating a “so-ordered” stipulation dated June 9, 2009, and imposed a fine in the sum of $1,000 for his criminal contempt.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To prevail on a motion to punish for criminal contempt, the moving party must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged contemnor willfully disobeyed a clear and unequivocal court order ( see Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v. Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 N.Y.2d 233, 240, 519 N.Y.S.2d 539, 513 N.E.2d 706;Town Bd. of Town of Southampton v. R.K.B. Realty, LLC, 91 A.D.3d 628, 629, 936 N.Y.S.2d 228;McGrath v. McGrath, 85 A.D.3d 742, 742–743, 924 N.Y.S.2d 805;Judiciary Law § 750[A][3] ). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, there was sufficient evidence presented at the hearing to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his repeated violation of a “so-ordered” stipulation dated June 9, 2009, was willful ( see Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v. Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 N.Y.2d at 241, 519 N.Y.S.2d 539, 513 N.E.2d 706;Town Bd. of Town of Southampton v. R.K.B. Realty, LLC, 91 A.D.3d at 630, 936 N.Y.S.2d 228;Casavecchia v. Mizrahi, 57 A.D.3d 702, 704, 869 N.Y.S.2d 604;Papa v. 24 Caryl Ave. Realty Co., 14 A.D.3d 600, 788 N.Y.S.2d 611).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.